On Electability

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

With the Florida primary happening today, and with the field of Republicans essentially down to 3, the electability argument continues to rear its head. While there may be some truth to it for some candidates (Ron Paul, Jon Huntsman back when he was actually a candidate), I found today's Sean Trende article at Real Clear Politics to be very compelling - who, exactly, is really the unelectable candidate?:

It’s understandable that the focus would be on Republican candidates in the midst of a GOP primary. But we shouldn’t forget that the general election -- like all incumbent elections -- will largely be a referendum on Barack Obama. And, under current conditions, Obama is every bit as unelectable as the Republicans supposedly are.

Trende spends two pages mapping out exactly where the flaws are in Obama's reelection effort. I'm someone who really sees history as predictive, and Trende notes Obama's low approval ratings and the economic indicators as evidence compared to previous incumbents. Trende notes what I've been saying here for some time - that Obama's accomplishments are generally unpopular (with the exception of the wars finishing up, which few voters care about compared to other issues). The reality is that the landscape, on a whole, has not changed much since 2010, which isn't a good sign for Obama at all.

Trende is unwilling to come right out and say what I am - that Obama's going to need a minor miracle to pull off a win in November given what we're seeing and the likely future. Trende's final point is something many need to keep in mind: "In theory, neither candidate should be able to win this election, but in practice, someone must." A weak, poor, unpopular Democratic President against a mediocre Republican challenger? The answer, at least to me thanks to the history lined up by Trende and the general approval we're seeing, is becoming clearer and clearer by the day.

Comments

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

Obama's going to need a minor miracle to pull off a win in November given what we're seeing and the likely future

You'll actually get a prediction right once, for a change. And it could be the biggest one - Obama's utlimate defeat, yo!

Bookmarking this, of course.

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf

[telemann.livejournal.com]

And Romney's net negatives are rising with the critical demographic: independent voters. according to this. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/romneys-negative-ratings-soaring-among-independents/2012/01/27/gIQAeVB1VQ_blog.html)
:

One key metric for determining whether the attacks on Mitt Romney and the bruising GOP primary are damaging him for the general election is this: How is he faring among independent voters, a key swing constituency, now that they’re getting to know him better? I’ve got a new partisan breakdown of some numbers from the new NBC/WSJ poll, and here’s the verdict: Romney’s unfavorability rating among independents has spiked 20 points in the last two months. The poll found that among overall Americans, Romney is rated very or somewhat positively by 31 percent, while he’s rated very or somewhat negatively by 36 percent. The office of pollster Peter Hart, who helped do the survey, sends over the numbers among independents. While Romney’s positive numbers among them have been roughly stable, at just over 20 percent, here is the change among independents in the past few months:

In November, Romney was rated somewhat or very negatively by 22 percent of independents.

In December, Romney was rated somewhat or very negatively by 29 percent of independents.

And in the new poll, Romney was rated somewhat or very negatively by 42 percent of independents — 20 points higher than two months ago.

Also: In November, Romney was beating Obama 47-34 among those voters. Now the numbers are upside down: Obama is beating Romney 44-36.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Good thing the election will be a referendum on Romney, right?

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

If only sample polls could define election outcomes...

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Obama doesn't need a miracle. The GOP will have to forfeit its reliance on fundamentalists getting their way in its primaries and act like a civilized political party and thus his re-election sees a GOP politician elected on a platform that's more than "No queers, liberals, or abortion" or it runs Gingrich and Romney and either way sees an internal falling out when the puritans realize what they've got to actually vote for.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I might also note that you predicted Angle and O'Donnell were shoe-ins, and they failed, and that Rick Perry would be the nominee and he was not.

[chipuni.livejournal.com]

The GOP will have to forfeit its reliance on fundamentalists getting their way in its primaries...

You mean by nominating someone who isn't a Fundamentalist?

IIRC, Romney is a Mormon, and Gingrich and Santorum are Catholics. Only Paul is Baptist.

(Extreme fundamentalists consider the Catholic Church to have lapsed from Christianity: See Are Roman Catholics Christian? (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0071/0071_01.asp) by Jack Chick.)

[bikinisquad3000.livejournal.com]

A minor miracle or, y'know, a reelection campaign and a few debates with the other candidate aimed at changing the perceptions mentioned in the article. We're still in the GOP primary, which, as you point out, is currently getting all the attention. Seems a wee bit early to be comparing his campaign to the ones that have been heavily active for months now.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

The point is more that, historically, Obama's got everything going against him. There's nothing on the horizon to indicate any drastic moves in the key metrics. He has nothing to run on. The perceptions are unlikely to change based on a couple debates, especially when Obama thinks things are going so well. Obama seemed surprised that an engineer can't get a job (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/president-obama-tells-unemployed-engineers-wife-send-me-your-husbands-resume/), as if somehow his policies have actually done anything of value.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Especially considering the great lack of enthusiasm that Republicans have with their candidates- during the time when the stage is theirs.

[soliloquy76.livejournal.com]

To be honest, I don't really care who wins the presidential election. I'm more interested in who wins the congressional elections.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Truly, so am I. The numbers look good for the GOP taking over the Senate, and they're probably going to lose House seats, but I don't know if there's a legitimate path to the House for the Democrats.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

Lot of Truth in this article. A piece that speaks to me...

> even these broadly unifying events only moved him into the 51/52 percent range, just beyond
> what he would need to feel confident of re-election. This suggests that the opinions of about
> 48 percent of the country are pretty solidified against him.

And this has been true even before the 2008 Election, though a largely demotivated Republican base (because of the fiasco that was the end of Bush's term) didn't express itself at the polls. The anti-Obama crowd is implacably anti-Obama, to a degree greater than any first term president in my political memory (which starts just after Carter)

Obama's road to victory is, and should always have been, insuring that his base is motivated. There is just not that much swing vote for him to get.

Some current issues demotivating his base:

Poor economy. Even Tree hugging liberals have day jobs, after all, just like most everyone else.
Guantanamo.
Perception of tardy and lackluster support of GLBT issues.
Continuation of (or lack of opposition to, depending on spin) draconian "Law and Order" legislation that impacts civil rights.

Obama was too willing to compromise right out of the gate, in an environment where compromise is the end result of a long tug of war (example, sticking a flag in the compromise point of 'public option' rather than starting at 'single payer'). Perhaps this suits his personality, his values and his desire for post partisan-ship... laudable but politically less effective.

On the other hand, I have to say, should Gingrich win the the GOP nomination, you will see a far greater motivation of Obama's base than you would with Milk Romney.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

I am delightfully surprised you would continue making political predictions given your history.

I would like to make a wager in that case. If Obama wins re-election, you will, for an entire year, use an icon of my choice as your sole user icon in LJ(at least in communities) and conversely I will do the same if the republican challenger wins.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

This could be fun, but let me think about this one.

[soliloquy76.livejournal.com]

Damn, can we get a lawyer up in here? As awesome as this sounds, I think we might need to draw up some papers or some shit.

[oportet.livejournal.com]

Obama has a bye into the 2nd round, so he doesn't have to waste inspirational catch phrases and witty comebacks in 31 different televised debates.

He can talk the talk - maybe that shouldn't be enough, but I'm thinking it will be.

[oslo.livejournal.com]

I found today's Sean Trende article at Real Clear Politics to be very compelling...

No doubt because you read it to confirm things you've been saying all along.

I'm someone who really sees history as predictive, and Trende notes Obama's low approval ratings and the economic indicators as evidence compared to previous incumbents.

When "history" consists of no more than fourteen data points, and in many cases, just one, a more reasonable person might be more cautious in drawing conclusions like "Obama's going to need a minor miracle to pull off a win in November." But hey, who cares about drawing justifiable and appropriately qualified inferences from limited data sets? Let's start celebrating a Republican sweep now!

Trende notes what I've been saying here for some time - that Obama's accomplishments are generally unpopular (with the exception of the wars finishing up, which few voters care about compared to other issues).

I think this is interesting - while apparently this point on popularity is true, it appears that the electorate is in fact pretty much flat-out wrong in thinking that the bailouts had no net positive effect, and the poll numbers having to do with PPACA apparently don't parcel out those provisions of the bill that, when appropriately framed, have broader support than the mandate. So, insofar as this "Obama's accomplishments are generally unpopular" line is supported by evidence, it appears that you're saying that Obama's doomed because people aren't well-informed about the economy or his accomplishments. Which is ironic, I think.

The reality is that the landscape, on a whole, has not changed much since 2010, which isn't a good sign for Obama at all.

No, but a close read of the article you've linked shows that there are some good signs, in particular the actual Romney/Obama numbers - whose importance Trende minimizes, despite earlier in the piece prognosticating for a couple paragraphs about Obama's current approval rating as though it tells us where it'll be on election day.

I mean, maybe Americans are stupid, maybe they will vote to send more Republicans to Congress after a track record of exactly zero accomplishments since 2010, and maybe they'll double down with either a corrupt career politician who pushes the populist button or a wishy-washy moderate who will prove disappointingly non-confrontational. Maybe Americans don't really care about having a safe and secure middle class. Up to them, I suppose. But I find it a bit odd to trumpet this dismal future like you can't wait for it to come about.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

No doubt because you read it to confirm things you've been saying all along.

More because he's one of the better columnists going right now, but way to show your good faith right out of the gate.

But hey, who cares about drawing justifiable and appropriately qualified inferences from limited data sets? Let's start celebrating a Republican sweep now!

Okay, so what data points do you have that look good for Obama overall? I mean, if it's a "limited" data set, what's missing?

So, insofar as this "Obama's accomplishments are generally unpopular" line is supported by evidence, it appears that you're saying that Obama's doomed because people aren't well-informed about the economy or his accomplishments. Which is ironic, I think.

It might be, assuming what you're saying is true about the impact. But hey, this is the same electorate that actually elected Obama, so I'm not expecting rocket science.

No, but a close read of the article you've linked shows that there are some good signs, in particular the actual Romney/Obama numbers - whose importance Trende minimizes, despite earlier in the piece prognosticating for a couple paragraphs about Obama's current approval rating as though it tells us where it'll be on election day.

The Romney/Obama actuals need to be noted for balance, and Trende is right to note them. What he doesn't note, and should, is that the numbers reflect a split GOP electorate currently, one that is wavering back and forth between multiple candidates, and one that does not show the sort of party unity for one candidate the way it will once this gets sorted out.

But I find it a bit odd to trumpet this dismal future like you can't wait for it to come about.

The only dismal future I see is one where Obama somehow gets a second term. We can't afford it as a nation.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

"Maybe Americans don't really care about having a safe and secure middle class."

Or maybe they do, and that is why The president's numbers are down.

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

All the GOP candidate has to do to lose is attempt to debate Obama.

No contest.

[udoswald.livejournal.com]

That's an important point. The GOP's best debater is Gingrich and he only appears intelligent to idiots (which is why the teapartiers love him so).

All Obama has to do to get to Gingrich is mention the ethics charges and all he has to do to get to Romney is mention Bain. As for Santorum, who has no chance of winning anyway, I won't get into what Obama could mention about him.

[udoswald.livejournal.com]

Things may not be perfect yet, but they're better than they were when Obama took office. Over a million jobs have been created by the stimulus, the banks are stable instead of being perched on the brink of failure. I just don't think, and I may be wrong, that people are going to want to jeopardize that recovery by putting someone in office who is untested and who represents the same failed policies that got us into this in the first place.

Now, as I said, I may be wrong. The people of New Jersey made just that decision when they chose to replace Jon Corzine, who was trying to fix the problem, with Chris Christie (not that Corzine's great, he screwed up big time with that MF Global nonsense, but he's much better than Christie).

That being said, I just don't think the American people are dumb enough to replace Obama, who is fixing the problem, with another George W. Bush who will just make things worse again.

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

I've said all along that it's going to be a referendum on the economy, and for the most part I still stand by that. If the economy doesn't improve enough then Obama is out, if it does then I don't see how he can be beat (I'm thinking unemployment will have to drop down to around 7% to help Obama). However seeing that Romney is the likely nominee at this point, I can't help but question the chances of Gordon Gekko winning this considering the strong anti-Wall Street sentiment in this country.

Then there's Obama's more recent actions, he's starting to stir up support from his base by finally growing a spine. The recess appointments, ending the war in Iraq, delaying Keystone, his populous State of the Union address, etc. have all struck chords with progressives who are starting to rally around him.

Then there's the Ron Paul factor. If he decides to run as an Independent then that's it for the GOP taking back the White House.

I'd say that the issue that is most important to Americans right now is jobs, by a mile. I think the deficit as an issue has lost its luster, even in the face of Europe's economic woes. GOP obstructionism to make that the top priority over jobs is a huge miscalculation on their part, and it will come back to haunt them. The fact is that they've offered no real solutions to bringing down unemployment, all they have is more tax cuts for the wealthy. Meanwhile they've helped send a lot of government employees out of work in the middle of a bad economy. They and their families will probably remember that come November.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

However seeing that Romney is the likely nominee at this point, I can't help but question the chances of Gordon Gekko winning this considering the strong anti-Wall Street sentiment in this country.

From this country or from the far left? I hear a lot of it here, but I'm not seeing a ton of carryover.

The recess appointments, ending the war in Iraq, delaying Keystone, his populous State of the Union address, etc. have all struck chords with progressives who are starting to rally around him.

So by violating the Constitution, taking an unpopular stand on jobs, giving a poor speech, and finishing a war that was already set to finish and that he promised to end a year and a half ago, that's going to help him?

If so, why isn't the polling bearing that out?

GOP obstructionism to make that the top priority over jobs is a huge miscalculation on their part, and it will come back to haunt them.

The GOP has passed countless jobs bills in the House. Obama pushing away from Keystone, which are actual guaranteed jobs, effectively neuters Obama on this issue.

The fact is that they've offered no real solutions to bringing down unemployment, all they have is more tax cuts for the wealthy.

I recall this being the argument against the GOP two years ago. How did that go?

[dwer.livejournal.com]

http://www.politicususa.com/en/obama-huge-victory-romney

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

While I want to agree with this I think it's still way to early to predict things one way or another. So much can happen between now and November. However if the economy continues to improve then it's going to be very hard to beat Obama, especially the way Mittens keeps shoving his foot into his mouth.

I'm more concerned with the GOP winning the Senate and keeping control of the House. I can see it becoming like the 90s all over again where they constantly try to trump up phony charges against the President until something sticks.